Download The Attractive Universe Theory

The Attractive Universe Theory,
A NEW APPROACH TO THE ELECTRICITY AND GRAVITY AMALGAMATION
M..L. Gershteyn and L.I.Gershteyn
Insight Product Company
P.O. box 35297 Brighton MA 02135
E-Mail: [email protected]
Repulsion-is the attraction to
the Universe.
Gravity is the remainder of electrical
forces.
The reason of symmetry failure is the
surrounding substance.
Gravitational constant probably varies
in different directions.
The paper gives model considerations permitting to present electric and gravitational forces as the display of a unique fundamental attraction.
One of the main predictions is that a number of physical processes might be anisotropic. It is supposed, in particular, that gravitational constant (G) can
depend on how the gravitationally interacting masses are oriented with respect to the system of fixed stars, also it is proposed that degree of CP symmetry
could depend on the orientation to the fixed stars.
Another prediction is that the gravitational constant in a given location depends on the state of surrounding matter of the universe, and thus depends on
location and time. This in turn should lead to a change in the method of calculating the age of the universe in the context of the Big Bang Theory, as well as to
the conclusion that there is no such thing as unstoppable gravitation collapse.
Models give a clew to the cause of symmetry failures in the fundamental interactions.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.
2
THE MAIN IDEAS OF AMALGAMATION
3
THE GRAPHICAL MODEL OF INTERACTION.
4
THE OBSERVED ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND GRAVITATION
5 THE MAIN EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED MODEL: ANISOTROPY, INHOMOGENEITY, SCREENING OF GRAVITATION, AND
THE ABSENCE OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE
6 THE CAUSE THE ABSENCE OF ANTI-MATTER AND THE DISTURBANCE OF CP SYMMETRY - ASYMMETRY OF THE
SURROUNDING MATTER
7. PERSPECTIVES FOR DYNAMICS.
8
THE CONJECTURE ON CHARGE DISCREETNESS AND CONTINUITY OF A GRAVITATIONAL MASS
9. CONCLUSIONS
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1
INTRODUCTION
The history of the search for the relationship between electricity and gravitation began with the first quantitative studies of electrical forces.
'Electricity is a phenomenon which is governed by the same law as gravitation"- Joseph Pristley wrote as long ago as 1887 in his book "The
History and the State-of-the Art of Electricity Illustrated by Original Experiments". Indeed, the law of interaction of electric charges established by
Coulomb a little bit later appeared to be similar in form to the law of universal gravitation. The Coulomb force, much like the gravitation force, is
inversely proportional to the square of distance and is directly proportional to the product of the charges, i.e. the electric charges play the same role in
electrostatics as the gravitational masses do in gravitation. However, in spite of the similarity of these laws, they differ in some essential points:
1. All the known gravitational charges (i.e. gravitational masses) are of the same sign, whereas electric charges exist with opposite signs.
2. Electric charges of the some sign repel while gravitational charges of the same sign attract each other.
3. The intensity of interaction differs dramatically. Thus, the force of Coulomb repulsion of two electrons is 4.15 * 10to the 42nd power times as great as
their Gravitational attraction.
4. A charge assumes strictly discrete values, multiples of an electron charge, whereas masses are not discrete.
5. A gravitational mass, in contrast to a electrical charge, changes with the change in the internal energy of a body.
6. A gravitational mass is proportional to the inertia of a body, i.e. to its inertial mass. At the same time there is no direct relation between the electrical
charge of a body and its inertia.
However all the enumerated essential distinctions of electricity and gravitation did not prevent Einstein from the search for a unification
theory, which he tried to construct during the last thirty years of his life. He felt these interactions are connected with one link and aimed at obtaining
electricity by the modification of the his geometrical theory of gravitation, which is also called the general theory of relativity. In this paper we've tried to
find another approach, namely, we've made an attempt to modernize the theory of electricity in order to include gravitation. A reader and experiment
should judge whether we've managed to untangle the 'clue" to some extent.
The considerations stated in our paper can not lay claim to the complete theory, it is rather a number of suppositions, analogies and visual models in the
spirit of Faraday power lines. Many questions still remain unanswered. The goal of the paper is to attract the reader's attention to the possibility of
nontraditional treatment of electric and gravitational phenomenon. Another aim is stimulation of experiments on the detection of anisotropy of a number
of physical processes, in particular, that of gravitational attraction and CP
asymmetry. Also the proposed view leads to the conclusion that the Gravitational Constant in a given location depends on the density of the surrounding
matter of the universe. Thus the gravitational constant depends on location and time, so modern methods of calculation of the age of the universe in the
Big Bang Theory should be revised.
2
THE MAIN IDEAS OF AMALGAMATION
A. It is assumed that at the most fundamental level matter consists of particles of two types: positive and negative elementary charges (ECs).
Particles of the same type are equivalent to each other; positive and negative particles differ in the sign of the electric charge.
B. It is supposed that the only fundamental interaction is the attraction of opposite elementary charges which has the feature of saturation.
C. It is supposed that the interaction with the surrounding universe plays a crucial roles for determining any local forces.
On the base of these assumptions we view the repulsion of the similar charges as the consequence of the attraction of each of them to the opposite
charges of the surrounding Universe. The mechanism of repulsion is as follows: any elementary isolated charge is attracted to the opposite charges of the
surrounding Universe. When the surroundings are symmetric, the forces are compensated in all directions. As two similar charges approach each other,
each of them disturbs the symmetry of the attraction to the Universe of the other charge due to saturation. It is as if the approaching charge shaded the
charge of the Universe located behind it. As a result the attraction to the region of the Universe located opposite the approaching charge is unbalanced for
each of the charges (Fig. 1). The pair of forces of attraction to the Universe (fpull) tends to pull apart similar charges and is perceived as their apparent
repulsion.
Attraction and the observed repulsion in this model are not equal in intensity and the difference would depend on the interaction with the surrounding
universe.
For example if we manage some how to turn off the interaction with the Universe, it would make the observed repulsion disappear, but the attraction
would stay.
In the graphical model constructed in this paper, the attraction of opposite elementary charges is slightly stronger than the apparent repulsion of
similar charges. The prevalence of the attraction over the repulsion leads to the fact that fundamental forces between neutral bodies are uncompensated.
The uncompensated remainder is the attractive force. Just this attraction has been identified with universal gravitation.
Thus the force of gravity depends on the state of the surrounding matter and thus can be inhomogeneous, time dependent and anisotropic. The
inhomogeneity means that the gravitational constant in various regions of the Universe is different. Anisotrophy means that it depends on the orientation
of the straight line connecting masses in respect to in the system of fixed stars.
3
THE GRAPHICAL MODEL OF INTERACTION
To demonstrate some features of the models based on the maine assumptions [A,B,C] we would like to introduce a simple graphical model of the
fundamental interaction in the spirit of Faraday power lines. We will suppose that an EC is attracted to EC's of opposite sign by the exchange of the
massless particle carriers (C). We also assume that carries have some surface of interaction with an EC. We would assume also that the exchange paths
are line segments which connect EC's of different signs.
By analogy with Faraday power lines, the force which acts on an EC in a particular direction is proportional to the number of paths of exchange
which lead from an EC in that direction.
EC's are represented by spheres with the same radius of interaction.
To determine the number of paths of exchange we will first draw from an EC dotted lines which extend evenly in all directions.
If a dotted line extending from EC1 to EC2 of opposite sign, and is not interrupted by other ECs on the way, it is a path of exchange between the two
ECs and it would be drawn as a continuous line segment.
This rule actually means that the real interaction occurs when a virtual carrier emitted by EC1 goes to EC2 of opposite sign uninterrupted by ECs of
the same polarity as EC2 and at the same time a virtual carrier emitted by EC2 extends to EC1 uninterrupted by ECs of a same polarity as EC1.
4
THE OBSERVED ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND GRAVITATION
4.1 The Attraction of an Elementary Charge to the Matter of the Universe
As it was noted, an isolated EC is attracted to all opposite unshaded ECs of the Universe. If the charges of the Universe surround the considered
charge symmetrically, the forces acting on the EC are compensated in all directions.
The force of attraction of the isolated EC to the Universe, affecting it in the direction of a small solid angle Ω, is proportional to a part of this angle Ω˜ in
which the rays drawn from the given EC encounter the opposite charges. If the environment is absolutely tightly packed and neutral (Fig. 2), exactly half
of rays encounter charges with similar signs and the other half encounter charges with opposite signs ( Ω˜ = 1/2 Ω). If the environment is not absolutely
tightly packed, but has some free space, we account for the missing interactions by defining the angle Ω˜ is less than a half of Ω:
(1)
The value α is dimensionless, greater than zero, but is much less than one. The value α characterizes a share of free space, i.e. the fraction of the solid
angle inside Ω, where the rays extending from the considered EC do not encounter other ECs, within the angle Ω. We call α the coefficient of the
incompleteness of the universe at the given location.
Figure 2 The attraction of EC 1 to the Universe in a solid angle.
One of the possibilities is that the incompleteness of the surrounding universe connected with the expanding of the universe.
Thus the force of attraction of EC1 to the charges of the Universe located in the solid angle Ω (fUniv.), is directly proportional to the angle Ω˜:
(2)
where k is a constant.
4.2 The Observed Repulsion of Similar Charges
According to the initial assumptions, similar charges do not exchange carriers directly, but they disturb each others symmetry of attraction to the
Universe. Each of the adjacent charges intercepts carriers from the matter of the Universe within the solid angle Ω, defined by the diameter of the charge
and the point located at the center of the other charge. Due to "shading" the attraction to the universe in the angle Ω is eliminated. Thus the attraction of
each of the considered ECs to the matter of the Universe, located in the corresponding angle opposite the shaded angle Ω is uncompensated (Fig. 3).
The pulling force of uncompensated attraction to the Universe, (fpull), equals the force of attraction of isolated ECs to the matter of the Universe in the
angle Ω:
(3)
Figure 3 The repulsion of similar charges. Only uncompensated ways of exchange belonging to EC 1
are shown.
4.3 The Observed Attraction of Opposite ECs
The approached opposite EC, similar to the like EC disturb each other's symmetry of the attraction to the Universe by intercepting carriers from each
other. The attraction to the Universe in the angle Ω is blocked for each of the opposite ECs. In view of the symmetry disturbance, the opposite
approached charges are affected by the same force of pulling asunder the attraction to the Universe (fpull) as the similar charges. The opposite charges are
also affected by the forces of fundamental attraction to each other ff, because they intersect carriers from each other within the solid angle Ω:
(4)
The forces ff and fpull have the opposite directions, but the attraction is approximately twice as much as the pulling asunder fpull because the angle Ω˜ ≈
1/2 Ω. As the result, the attraction of opposite charges is observed with the force fopp which is slightly greater than fpull (Fig. 4):
(5)
Figure 4 The observed attraction of opposite ECs. Only uncompensated ways of exchange are
depicted.
4.4 Gravitational and Purely Electrical Forces
Comparing expressions (3) and (5) that the observed attraction of opposite ECs (fopp) is slightly stronger than the repulsion of similar ECs (fpull) The
predominance of the attraction results in the residual attraction acting between neutral bodies. Just this attraction is associated with gravitation in the
model we propose. Thus the gravitational force is greater, the less the gravitating bodies are attracted by the matter of the Universe. If the environment is
packed absolutely tightly (α = 0) there is no gravitation at all. The observed forces, acting between any two ECs can be presented in the form of a sum
of two components: one, which does not depend or the coefficient of incompleteness α and the other directly proportional to it. We call the first
component a electric force (fel) and the second - a Gravitational force (fgr.):
(6)
(7)
The electric part gives an ordinary electrostatic interaction (attraction and repulsion). The gravitational part of the force gives only the attraction between
two ECs irrespective of their signs. Both these forces decreases inversely proportionally to the square of the distance. Both of them are a
manifestation of a fundamental attraction.
5
THE MAIN EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED MODEL: ANISOTROPY, INHOMOGENEITY, SCREENING OF
GRAVITATION, AND THE ABSENCE OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE
5.1 Anisotropy
The local value of the coefficient of the incompleteness of the Universe α depends on the distribution of the surrounding matter of the Universe. If
the distribution of surrounding matter is slightly anisotropic, then the coefficient α can have different values in various directions. Thus, the gravitational
attraction of two masses will depend on the fact how the straight line connecting these masses is oriented with respect to the system of fixed stars.
Thus the observation of gravitation anisotropy could open up a new astronomical method.
5.2 Inhomogeneity
In view of the fact that gravitation depends on the environment, the gravitation constant G can be different in various regions of the Universe and
varies with time as the distribution of matter or the velocities of matter changes.
When considering cosmological problems it is important to take into account the possible inhomogeneity of G in space and time.
5.3 Screening by surrounding, absence of unstoppable gravitational collapse
It is well known that the screening of purely electric forces is associated with the fact that the external electric field gives rise to charge polarization
on a screen and this polarization in turn produces a field that compensates the external one.
The described mechanism of screening does not affect the gravitational part of the force because gravitation influences all the charges equally and
thus the screening does not produce any compensating gravitation field. But nevertheless, gravitation is weakened slightly by the screen due to "shading."
In this connection the attraction between two masses reduces not only when a screen is placed between them but also when both masses are surrounded
by one screen (the density of the surrounding matter increases, i.e. α decreases). The degree of screening of the gravitation by ordinary matter is, perhaps,
negligible. This is caused by the fact that the matter, as it is know, "consists, mainly, of free space." In terms of the model proposed it means that the
distance between ECs in matter is dramatically greater that the dimensions of an EC.
But when a star is collapsing the density of matter could grow so large that inside the collapsing star the gravitational force would disappear (α = 0).
That means there is no such thing as unstoppable gravitational collapse.
6
THE CAUSE THE ABSENCE OF ANTI-MATTER AND THE DISTURBANCE OF CP SYMMETRY - ASYMMETRY OF
THE SURROUNDING MATTER
The cause of the absence of antimatter in our universe as well as the disturbance of CP symmetry could be asymmetry in surrounding matter.
We may "shift the blame" for the disturbance of symmetries to the environment, assuming that we are surrounded by elementary charges of one sign
in a slightly greater degree than of the other. Thus the total balance in the entire Universe can be absolute, but in any local region the balance can be
disturbed due to saturation.
At the base of our assumptions, we suppose that the degree of CP symmetry is different in various directions and also varies with the location in space
and time. Then the experiments analogous to those performed by Val Fitch and Jim Cronin will yield different numerical results depending on the
orientation of experimental apparatus in the system of fixed stars.
7
PERSPECTIVES FOR DYNAMICS.
In perspective it seems very promising to try to combine the maine assumptions of this article (A,B,C) with the ideas of Mach and Feynman-Wheeler
[1,2]. It looks naturally in such models to connect inertial mass with the energy of interaction with the universe. One of the requirements, which the
theory should meet is the compensation of all forces from the side of the matter of the Universe at a movement without acceleration with respect to the
inertial system.
Another requirement is the emergence of uncompensated force from the universe affecting a body accelerated with respect to it, which would be an
explanation of Newton's Second Law.
Note that the problem of the effects of the universe on local processes have been considered by a number of authors [3].
8
THE CONJECTURE ON CHARGE DISCREETNESS AND CONTINUITY OF A GRAVITATIONAL MASS
To our mind the discreetness of a charge and the continuity of a gravitational mass can be explained taking into account the mutual shading of
charges and assuming that only dynamic structures of a special kind can be stable.
We consider the simplest neutral system consisting of two opposite ECs. Each of them as it approaches the other, intercepts in a greater and greater
degree the dotted rays extending from the other. As a result the interaction of each EC with external masses weakens. Averaging over all possible
directions we describe a mean weakening of interaction of each of two ECs, with external masses as the decrease of its effective charge (eeff). The
effective charge of ECs located in a certain system, for example in a two-charges system, is defined by the total number of dotted rays, extending from EC
beyond the system.
In a pair of opposite ECs, each charge intercepts rays extending from the other to the solid angle Ω. Beyond the system of opposite charges the lines
extend from each EC to the almost complete solid angle (4π - Ω). The lines from a free EC extend to the full solid angle 4π. Putting eo for a charge of a
free EC, we obtain the following expression for the effective charge of an EC in a system of two opposite charges (eeff.2):
(8)
where R is the distance between the ECs.
The attraction is defined by a sum of forces of gravitational attraction between all charges of masses irrespective of their sign. Consequently, the
gravitational mass of a body is determined by a sum of its effective charges without taking into account the sign. For a mass of a system of two opposite
charges (mgr.2) we have:
(9)
Figure 5 The simplest charged system.
It follows from the expression (12), that the gravitational mass of a two-EC system can smoothly change as the charges approach each other.
At the same time, the electric charge of a system is defined by the difference of the effective positive and negative charges and if a system is neutral it
equals zero.
The simplest charged system is a system of three ECs, for example, of two positive charges and one negative. Suppose that all three ECs are on one line,
the negative charge locating in the center of it and two positive--on each side of it, equally spaced from the negative charge (Fig. 9). It is easily seen that
the electric charge of such a system appears to be total and equal to eo whatever the distance between ECs. At the same time the gravitational mass of the
system changes continuously depending on the distance between ECs.
A positive total effective charge (Q+eff.) is expressed in the form:
( 10 )
Since the negative EC is surrounded from both sides, the total negative effective charge (Qeff) is
( 11 )
The electric charge of the system (Q) is defined as the difference of Q+eff. and Q-eff. and the gravitational mass (mgr.) is proportional to the sum Q+eff. and
Q-eff.:
(12 )
(16)
Thus, the electric charge of a system can be multiple of eo and independent of distances between ECs, while the gravitational mass of the same system can
depend on these distances and change continuously. The charges of such systems should form in peculiar structures. Suppose that just such structures are
dynamically stable. Note that in the considered structure consisting of three ECs (Fig. 5) we really have an attracting center in the form of a negative
charge around which the positive "side" ECs can rotate.
9
CONCLUSIONS
"And it will eternally begin." Osip Mandelstam
It is well know that the scattering of values of exact measurements of G is by several times greater than the measurement error [4,5].
Luther and Towler (1982) noted differences in the measured Gravitational Constant consistent with changing orientation of the experimental set up,
but probably misinterpreted differences as an artifact connected with the influence of the magnetic field of the Earth [5].
The last measurements of G still differ one from another by several times the experimental errors [Fitzgerald et al.; Meyer et al; Michaelis et al]. We
think that these differences are related to the anisotrophy of the Gravitational Constant. We hope that this article would motivate experimental
measurements of anisotrophy of the gravitational constant and also provide the impetus for further development of theoretical models with our main
assumptions A,B,C.
Such models suggest the cause of asymmetries, and could change our understanding of gravity, inertia and other fundamental processes as well as the
evolution of the universe.
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was first published in Russia in 1988. It generated very emotional and intense discussions at several special seminars in the Institute of
Applied Physics (IAP) and the Radiophysical Research Institute, both in Nizniy Novgouod (formerly Gorky) in Russia.
In Moscow, the paper has been privately discussed with Academician Andrey Sakharov and Professor Vladimir Panov (Moscow University), well
known in the field of Gravitational Experiments (The experiment of Braginski-Panov).
The authors wish to express their appreciation to all those, who took part in these discussions. We are especially grateful to those who contributed
time and effort to write reviews to support publication, namely: Academician Vsevolod Troitsky, Dr. Lev Ostrovsky, Dr. Lev Tsimring, Dr. Evsey
Yakubovich, Dr. Vladimir Semenov, Dr. Vladimir Gildenburg, Dr. Boris Abramovich, Dr. Igor Aranson, Dr. Alexander Krunpnik, Dr. Yuri
Dryagin, Dr. Vladimir Vaks and Dr. Anatoliy Valdov.
Our thanks to Dr. Yakov Hanin and Dr. Lev Eruchimov, as well as to doctor Leonid Genkin and doctor Vladimir Vaks who helped organize the
seminars. Also special thanks to Anatoliy Valdov, who was the first reader of the article and helped with editing the first Russian version and to
Vladimir Vaks who helped with the first translation to English.
Thanks to Vladlen Pavlenkov who helped to bring first translation of the article to the USA.
In the United States this article has been discussed with a number of well known gravitational experimenters and astronomers. Our thanks for discussions
to Professor Riley Newman (Department of Physics, University of California), Jens H. Gundlach (Nuclear Physics Lab, University of Washington),
Neil Dyson (Hayden Planetarium), and Nobel laureate Robert Wilson (Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics).
Our thanks to Sergey Gurvitz (Weizman Institute, Izrael), for his review and suggestions.
Finally our deep thanks to Charles Welch who helped us with editing the last English translation, and for his encouragement.
Written: September 5, 1987; First publication (In Russian)-1988; Last translation to English-2000.
REFERENCES
1.
Wheeler J.A., Feynman R.F., Rev. Mod. Phys 1945, v 17, p. 156
2.
Wheeler J.A., Feynman R.F., Rev. Mod. Phys 1949, v 21, p. 424
3.
Narliker G.V., Inertia and cosmology in the Einstein relativity theory. Astrofisica e Cosmologia Gravitazione Quantie Relativita, negli sviluppi del
pensiero scientifico di Albert Einstein, Giunti Barbera Firenze, 1979.
4.
Milyukov Y.K., Sagitov M.U. Gravitational Constant in Astronomy. M. Znaniye 1985.
5.
Cook A. Rep. Prog. Phys, 51, (1988), p 707-757